Turtles, tear gas and Seattle’s neighborhood district councils

Do you remember the WTO-protest mantra, “This is what democracy looks like”? I think about that phrase from time to time, without the tear gas and turtle costumes, when I think of the scores of volunteers who make sure neighborhoods from Broadview in the north to South Park in the south talk with each other and with city government.

These are the neighborhood district councils. They are fundamental to civic health in Seattle and a newly released city audit shows they could use some help.

Seattle established district councils back in 1987 as a way to structure communication within areas of the city and with city government. The district council map divides Seattle into 13 regions. Wherever you live in the city, you likely have a community council or club for your neighborhood that sends a representative to a monthly district council meeting. Each district council sends a representative to the monthly meeting of the City Neighborhood Council. District councils receive a small amount of funding and staff support from the Department of Neighborhoods.

Whether you’re in Delridge or Greenwood or Downtown, sitting side by side with your neighbor talking about crime or sidewalk funding or gentrification can be difficult work, but it’s central to how we govern ourselves. The academics call it “collaborative governance” and district councils are a key part of making it happen in Seattle.

District councils can be phenomenal places for information sharing, brainstorming, grousing and strategizing. However, some district councils labor with too few minds at the table and too few different voices. In the past couple of years we’ve had missteps and misunderstandings that led to a city audit reviewing the original mission of the district councils and how the system has morphed in 22 years. The results show a fundamentally sound system, but one that needs re-clarifying and rejuvenation.

The audit calls out three significant problems. First, the 1987 legislation defining the work of the district councils is too vague when it comes to roles and responsibilities. This may be the most important finding in the audit. According to the report, city officials and citizens have varying ideas about the purpose of the district council system. The audit, built through interviews with dozens of current and former neighborhood advocates, shows that when government or neighborhood factions push the district councils to be something they’re not – when we ask a district council to speak for everyone in an area (an impossible task for volunteers) or carry out city work – battles over representation and legitimacy ensue and the value of the district councils as neutral, informational gathering places is lost.

Second, pressure on the district councils from city government to become more diverse, while good in concept, has been perceived as manipulative. Then, when conflict has erupted over the legitimacy of new members, the city has stepped back from the table rather than helped resolve the conflict.

Third, the city has a spotty record when it comes to consistency in support for the district council volunteers and in keeping records.

Beyond these three findings, the audit also highlights more typical struggles associated with volunteer groups. Some long-time district council participants dominate meetings and may not represent their home community councils, block watches or P-Patches as much as they represent themselves. By and large participants admirably represent and communicate back with their home community councils, but even then the district councils are not – and probably can’t be – totally representative of an entire region of the city. We’re too diverse now.

The auditor’s work opens a door for us. Seattle has a tremendous history of strong neighborhoods and high expectations for participatory democracy built through efforts like neighborhood planning and the district council system itself. The system, a product of the 1980s, needs examination and rejuvenation.

In the spirit of participatory democracy, we – city government and neighborhoods – should carry forward that examination and rejuvenation in partnership with existing district council participants and others over the course of 2010. At a minimum we should clarify the objectives of the district councils, their governance and the city government’s role in assisting them.

I am currently reading a new book called “Investing in Democracy” by Professor Carmen Siriani of Brandeis University. The author argues that while not all decisions and processes lend themselves to full-on citizen engagement, most of our work in government is strengthened by building in citizen participation and dialogue made possible by systems like the district councils.

Siriani writes, “Government… ought to invest in collaborative governance to help ensure that its partners have capacities for fair and informed deliberation and shared work, especially those forms that engage citizens in productive and value added contributions.”

I still think of tear gas and turtles costumes when I think, “This is what democracy looks like,” but I also think of our neighbors sitting together, sharing and debating. Day in and day out, this is what democracy looks like.